Afghanistan: Macedonian Army

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Drayson on 3 May (WA 65), whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as soon as it is available.

Lord Drayson: No. This is a confidential document between the two Governments.

Armed Forces: Infantry

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether each of the new regimental outstations in the future infantry structure will receive the same level of funding that they received in their previous roles as regimental headquarters.

Lord Drayson: Our plans for the structure of regimental headquarters and their outstations are subject to a period of TU consultation. The precise details of funding for individual regimental headquarters and their outstations are still under development and must take into consideration factors such as manning and running costs.

Aviation: Open Skies

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the open skies aviation agreement with the United States is unlikely to be ratified until later this year.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Ratification can take place only once a new agreement on aviation services with the United States has been reached. Negotiations towards a balanced agreement continue between the European Union and the United States.

Debt

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider special Treasury measures, in connection with credit card companies, to restrain the rise in the level of United Kingdom personal debt.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: HM Treasury is currently not considering any special measures to restrain the rise in the level of unsecured personal debt, which is currently growing at its lowest rate for 12 years.

Energy: Biofuels

Viscount Eccles: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a biodiesel production plant is planned for the north-east of England; if so, whether rape seed oil will be used as a feedstock; and what will be the expected costs of production per unit of output.

Lord Rooker: The Biofuels Corporation has built and commissioned a commercial scale production plant on Teesside. This plant will produce 250,000 tonnes of biodiesel, using renewable vegetable oil crops as the feedstock, when running at full capacity, and is the largest of its kind in Europe.
	The Northeast Biofuels Consortium is currently undertaking feasibility and front-end design for the building of a £40 million crushing plant facility to complement the biofuels production agenda and further assist in stimulating local agribusiness.
	Information concerning production costs is commercial in confidence.

Entry Clearances: Independent Monitor's Report

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Triesman on 15 March (WA 232), why the report of Ms Fiona Lindsley, the previous Independent Monitor on Entry Clearances, which was agreed on 22 January, has not yet been published.

Lord Triesman: Ms Lindsley's report was submitted on 20 March to my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw), who asked UKvisas for further information. The report was resubmitted to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 17 May and it will be laid before Parliament once she has approved it.

EU: Citizens' Agenda

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will send their preliminary responses to the European Union Commission communication of 10 May on the "Citizens' Agenda, Delivering Results for Europe".

Lord Triesman: The UK welcomes the communication from the Commission "A Citizens' Agenda: Delivering Results for Europe" and in particular the focus on practical policies which deliver specific results to citizens. We expect it will inform discussions at the Klosterneuburg informal meeting and the June European Council. The Government will prepare an explanatory memorandum on the communication for the parliamentary scrutiny committees in line with standard practice.

EU: Constitutional Treaty

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the recent suggestion by the President of the European Commission that any further consideration of the European constitutional treaty should include consideration of an updated version of the Messina declaration.

Lord Triesman: The UK welcomes the communication from the Commission "A Citizens' Agenda: Delivering Results for Europe", in which this suggestion was made. We agree with the Commission's proposals that we should be focusing on practical policies which deliver specific results to citizens and on the reforms needed to make the EU competitive in today's global economy.
	We would be open to the idea of a declaration setting out Europe's values and ambitions. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in Oxford in February,
	"for Europe to succeed, it needs to reconnect its priorities and pre-occupations with the challenges its people face; demonstrate visibly the 21st century relevance of Europe; and give the policy answers to these challenges first and then let institutional change help deliver them; rather than the other way round. First decide what we want to do; then work out how to do it".
	We would consider proposals from this starting point.

Freedom of Information

Lord Tyler: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who are the members of the freedom of information users group appointed in consequence of the Freedom of Information legislation; when that group has met; and what subjects were discussed at each meeting.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Members of the information rights user group are as follows:
	Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead
	Peter Bottomley MP
	Adrian Pollitt
	Paul Bettison
	Lord Lester of Herne Hill
	John Hipwood
	Professor Robert Hazell
	Rosemary Jay
	Maurice Frankel
	Anthony Kenny
	Bob Satchwell
	The Information Commissioner (observer)
	The first meeting of the group will now take place on 8 June. The meeting originally planned for 4 May had to be cancelled.

Parliamentary Ombudsman

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 29 March (WA 126), on how many occasions since 1997, and in respect of which specific recommendations, HM Land Registry has refused or omitted to give effect to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: There has been no occasion since 1997 that Land Registry has refused or omitted to give effect to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Parliamentary Ombudsman

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McKenzie of Luton on 8 May (WA 119), where the information is held as to occasions since 1997 when HM Revenue and Customs has refused or omitted to give effect to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Ombudsman; and how members of the public may have access to that information; and
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McKenzie of Luton on 8 May (WA 119), whether HM Revenue and Customs will in future hold information about the department's compliance with the Parliamentary Ombudsman's recommendations in a way which permits public access to that information.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: HM Revenue and Customs is not aware of any occasions on which it has refused or omitted to give effect to recommendations made in respect of individual complaint cases dealt with by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. However, the department does not maintain comprehensive records on this matter. HM Revenue and Customs complies with the provisions of the Public Records Act 1967 and Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Parliamentary Ombudsman

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 8 May (WA 119-20), where the information is held as to the number of occasions since 1997 when the Countryside Agency has refused or omitted to give effect to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Ombudsman; and how members of the public may have access to that information.

Lord Rooker: We believe that no such cases involving the Countryside Agency have arisen.

Parliamentary Ombudsman

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 8 May (WA 119–20), whether the Countryside Agency will in future hold information about the department's compliance with the Parliamentary Ombudsman's recommendations in a way which permits public access to that information.

Lord Rooker: In the event of any future cases involving the Countryside Agency, information on compliance with the Parliamentary Ombudsman's recommendations would be held on registered files. These would be accessible to the general public on written application.

RAF: Capabilities

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Where responsibility will lie under the arrangements for the reorganisation of the Royal Air Force, announced by the Ministry of Defence on 31 March, for ensuring that (a) sufficient defensive suites for transport aircraft are available and installed as appropriate; (b) appropriate passenger carrying capabilities are available for transporting members of the United Kingdom Armed Forces into and out of theatre; and (c) such capabilities are managed so as to provide a timely service and satisfactory travel conditions.

Lord Drayson: The Equipment Capability Customer (ECC) will continue to ensure that, where needed, sufficient defensive systems for transport aircraft are available and installed. The management of the passenger airlift programme is undertaken jointly by the Defence Transport and Movements Agency (DTMA) in the Defence Logistics Organisation, and by the Integrated Tasking and Operations Centre (ITOC) which is part of RAF Strike Command. These arrangements will not change under the reorganisation of the Royal Air Force and they will continue to be managed to provide both a timely service and satisfactory travel conditions as far as practicable.

Redundancy Pay

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord McKenzie of Luton on 14 March (WA 221), what assessment they have made for the latest year for which figures are available as to the net saving to the Exchequer of changing the maximum permitted redundancy payment to (a) statutory redundancy pay, and (b) £12,500.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: For 2003-04 it is estimated that reducing the tax relief limit on redundancy payments from £30,000 to £12,500 would save the Exchequer some £350 million. Information on restricting the same relief to statutory levels of redundancy pay is not available, except at disproportionate cost.

Roads: M4 Junction 11

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to resurface the slip road from the A329M to the eastbound carriageway of the M4 motorway at junction 10.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The on-slip roads at this location are still in a safe and serviceable condition and are therefore not included in the Highways Agency's current four-year programme of major maintenance. The agency will continue to carry out periodic inspections but does not expect to be required to resurface the slip roads within the foreseeable future.

Tallow

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to reclassify tallow as a waste product.

Lord Rooker: Whether or not a substance is "waste" within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) (75/442/EEC as amended) is a matter that must be determined on the facts of the case and the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. It is not a function of the Government to classify or to declassify any particular substance as waste or non-waste. The Government's understanding of the facts is that the EU animal by-products regulation ((EC) No.1774/2002) requires a range of animal by-products, and substances derived from them (for example, tallow) to be disposed of as waste.
	On 21 December 2005, the European Commission published its Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste together with a proposed revision of the WFD. The draft revised WFD contains a proposal which would enable the Commission to adopt environmental and quality criteria for specified waste streams. Where these criteria are met, the effect would be to deem that the recovery of the specified waste had been completed and that it had ceased to be waste. The Commission's thematic strategy proposes that, subject to the outcome of an environmental study which the Commission is currently undertaking, the waste streams addressed by this system should include the use of tallow as a fuel.

Taxation: Capital Gains Tax

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For the latest year for which figures are available, what would be the saving to the Exchequer if the need not to time apportion the past 36 months for private residence relief under capital gains tax were changed to the last (a) 24 months; (b) 12 months; or (c) six months.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The total estimated cost on an accruals basis of exemption of gains arising on disposal of only or main residence in 2005-06 is published in table A3.1 in the Budget Report 2006. There are no estimates of the revenue effect of changing the 36-month rules, except at a disproportionate cost.

Taxation: Corporation Tax

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McKenzie of Luton on 15 March (WA 243), what would be the net cost to the Exchequer of abolishing marginal relief at the small companies rate if the main rate of corporation tax remained at 30 per cent for profits over £300,000, for the latest year for which figures are available; and
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McKenzie of Luton on 15 March (WA 243), what would be the net cost to the Exchequer of abolishing marginal relief at the small companies rate if the main rate of corporation tax was reduced to (a) 29 per cent; (b) 28 per cent; (c) 27 per cent; (d) 26 per cent; and (e) 25 per cent for profits over £300,000, for the latest year for which figures are available.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I refer the noble Lord to my Written Answer of 30 March 2006 (WA 154).

Taxation: Income Tax

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord McKenzie of Luton on 14 March (WA 123), what assessment they have made of how much extra income tax would be paid by individuals who for tax purposes are resident but non-domiciled in the United Kingdom if those who had lived in the United Kingdom for 17 of the past 20 years were assessed on their worldwide income.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The information requested is not available.

Taxation: Income Tax

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For the latest year for which figures are available, what assessment they have made of the income tax raised through taxing the provision of living accommodation to employees; and what would be the net cost or benefit to the Exchequer if the charge to income tax was based on the market rental of the living accommodation provided as opposed to the current rules.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The information requested is available in Table 4.1 "Taxable benefits in kind and expenses payments", which can be found on the HM Revenue and Customs website at www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/taxable–benefits/4–1–mar06.pdf. Information on the market rental of this accommodation is not available, except at disproportionate cost.

Taxation: National Insurance

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For the latest year for which figures are available, what assessment they have made of the saving to the Exchequer if the primary threshold for national insurance contributions was maintained at its current level but assessed on an annual cumulative basis across all employments rather than assessed on a weekly or monthly basis on an employment by employment basis.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Taxation: Stamp Duty

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For the latest year for which figures are available, what would be the net cost to the Exchequer of stamp duty on residential houses being amended so that once thresholds were passed only the excess above the threshold was charged at the higher rate rather than all of the consideration being charged at the higher rate.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: If the same rates of SDLT had applied only to the value of residential property in excess of the 2005-06 thresholds, this would have generated a net cost to the Exchequer estimated to be in the region of £2 billion in that year. The precise cost would be dependent on the magnitude of the behavioural response to the change.

Taxation: Stamp Duty

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For the latest year for which figures are available, how many residential property transactions took place in the United Kingdom where the consideration was more than £50,000 but less than £750,000, broken down into bands of £10,000.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The table below shows the breakdown of residential transactions in each price band in Great Britain for 2004. The breakdown for Northern Ireland in 2004 is unavailable and therefore UK figures for this year cannot be given.
	
		
			 Range of Price (£ thousands)(Upper Limit1) Total Number of Residential Transactions (thousands) 
			 50 346 
			 60 73 
			 70 59 
			 80 72 
			 90 83 
			 100 81 
			 110 66 
			 120 80 
			 130 87 
			 140 81 
			 150 76 
			 160 68 
			 170 66 
			 180 61 
			 190 54 
			 200 46 
			 210 32 
			 220 34 
			 230 33 
			 240 30 
			 250 46 
			 260 8 
			 270 15 
			 280 17 
			 290 14 
			 300 14 
			 310 10 
			 320 10 
			 330 10 
			 340 8 
			 350 9 
			 360 6 
			 370 6 
			 380 7 
			 390 5 
			 400 6 
			 410 4 
			 420 4 
			 430 4 
			 440 3 
			 450 4 
			 460 3 
			 470 2 
			 480 3 
			 490 3 
			 500 4 
			 510 0 
			 520 1 
			 530 1 
			 540 1 
			 550 1 
			 560 1 
			 570 1 
			 580 1 
			 590 1 
			 600 1  
			 610 1 
			 620 1 
			 630 1 
			 640 1 
			 650 1 
			 660 0 
			 670 1 
			 680 1 
			 690 0 
			 700 1 
			 710 0 
			 720 0 
			 730 0 
			 740 0 
			 750 0 
			 More than 750 12 
			 Total 1,780 
		
	
	1 For example, the £50,000 band cover all transactions between £0 to £50,000, the £60,000 band covers all transactions between £50,001 to £60,000 etc.
	Published figures for 2004 are available from www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/survey–of–prop/table16-1-july05.xls and www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/survey–of–prop/16–1a–nov05.xls. Figures for England and Wales will be updated in June 2006 and Scotland in November 2006.

Taxation: Taper Relief

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For the latest year for which figures are available, what is the cost to the Exchequer of providing taper relief to individuals, trustees and individuals' representatives on (a) business assets, and (b) non-business assets.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The total estimated cost, on an accrual basis, of taper relief for individuals and trusts in 2005-06 is published in table A3.1 in the Budget Report 2006. The estimated costs of taper relief by type of asset (business and non-business) are set out in the table below.
	
		
			 Type of Asset Estimated cost of taper relief in 2005-06 (Accruals £m) 
			 Business 4,000 
			 Non-business 500 
			 Total 4,500 
		
	
	These estimated costs are not the same as the yield from abolition of a relief as they do not take into account any behavioural changes which would occur if a relief were abolished.